alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2021 ND 78

Delvin Lamont Shaw, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20200190

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Delvin L. Shaw, Bismarck, ND, petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for

respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

APRIL 28, 2021 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Shaw v. State

No. 20200190

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Delvin Lamont Shaw appeals from an order denying his application for 

post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Shaw was convicted on charges of 

murder and burglary. Shaw argues the district court erred in denying his 

application for post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance 

of appellate counsel on direct appeal. Shaw contends his appellate counsel was 

ineffective because counsel did not consult with him about the objectives of his 

appeal and failed to raise issues that Shaw preserved at trial. Following a postconviction evidentiary hearing, the court found Shaw failed to demonstrate any 

actual prejudice and therefore failed to satisfy the second prong of the

Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel.

[¶2] We conclude the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test for ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims if the matter can be resolved by addressing only 

one prong. Rencountre v. State, 2015 ND 62, ¶ 7, 860 N.W.2d 837. The court 

did not err in denying Shaw’s application for post-conviction relief, and we 

summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, Acting C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas L. Mattson, D.J.

[¶4] The Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, D.J., sitting in place of Jensen, C.J., 

disqualified.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 103

 118

 111

 112

 125

 118

 119

 101

 119

 114

 123

 118

 98

 117

 122

 113

 104

 121

 108

 99

 123

 124

 123

 127

 124

 112

 117

 115

 101

 108

 122

 80

 83

 84

 83

 83

 84

 84

 82

 81

 78

 80

 83

 84

 83

 82

 79

 82

 87

 86

 88

 84

 86

 85

 81

 86

 84

 80

 76

 79

 78

 77

 85

 89

 88

 88

 88

 87

 89

 86

 89

 90

 89

 89

 86

 89

 88

 86

 89

 92

 90

 91

 88

 91

 91

 89

 92

 88

 87

 84

 83

 84

 85

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 12, 2005

HIGH LOW MEAN

 79.6

 79.1

 78.6

 78.8

 79.4

 79.6

 79.8

 78.9

 77.8

 77.9

 77.6

 78.0

 76.3

 75.3

 73.2

 75.2

 75.6

 75.3

 74.3

 74.4

 74.9

 74.8

 76.0

 75.2

 74.8

 74.5

 74.7

 75.2

 74.8

 73.2

 72.9

 73.7

 73.4

 72.8

 72.8

 73.6

 73.5

 73.8

 73.7

 73.2

 72.2

 71.6

 72.0

 71.1

 70.1

 70.5

 69.7

 70.1

 70.2

 69.2

 69.1

 69.4

 69.4

 70.1

 70.5

 69.5

 69.2

 69.8

 70.1

 69.8

 69.0

 67.9

 76.7

 76.1

 75.7

 75.7

 76.3

 76.4

 76.6

 76.3

 75.7

 75.1

 74.6

 75.1

 73.9

 72.7

 72.2

 72.4

 72.9

 72.7

 71.7

 71.8

 72.2

 72.1

 73.0

 73.0

 72.3

 71.9

 72.2

 72.7

 72.4

 71.3

 70.5

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.5

 8.5

 8.5

 8.3

 8.3

 8.2

 8.0

 8.1

 8.5

 8.2

 8.1

 8.1

 8.2

 8.1

 8.0

 8.2

 8.2

 8.1

 8.1

 8.0

 7.9

 7.9

 7.8

 8.1

 8.2

 8.2

 8.1

 7.9

 7.8

 7.9

 8.0

 7.5

 7.3

 7.5

 7.4

 7.3

 7.3

 7.1

 7.1

 7.3

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.5

 7.4

 7.3

 7.4

 7.4

 7.2

 7.1

 7.1

 7.1

 7.4

 7.5

 7.5

 7.3

 7.2

 7.2

 7.3

 7.8

 7.8

 7.8

 7.7

 7.7

 7.6

 7.5

 7.5

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.6

 7.7

 7.7

 7.7

 7.8

 7.7

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.5

 7.4

 7.4

 7.5

 7.7

 7.7

 7.7

 7.6

 7.4

 7.5

 7.5

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
### SUBCHAPTER IV—PARTICIPATION BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN YAGMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JESSE K. BRAY, AKA Jay Bray; 

CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL; 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, 

INC.; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; 

MR. COOPER GROUP, INC.; 

NATIONSTAR CAPITAL 

CORPORATION; UNKNOWN NAMED 

DEFENDANTS, 1-10, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-55681 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02278-FMO-JC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Stephen Yagman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 18 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 21-55681 

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his 

home loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mpoyo v. Litton 

Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yagman’s action on the basis of claim 

preclusion because Yagman raised, or could have raised, his claims in his prior 

federal actions, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted in 

final judgments on the merits. See id. (setting forth elements of federal claim 

preclusion); see also Yagman v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 783 F. App’x 790 (9th 

Cir. 2019); Yagman v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 699 F. App’x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yagman’s motion 

for sanctions in connection with defendants’ res judicata arguments. See Holgate 

v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675-78 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review 

and requirements for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11); Barber v. Miller, 146 

F.3d 707, 709, 711 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review and 

requirements for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927). 

We reject as without merit Yagman’s contention that the district court erred 

by considering the motions to dismiss despite defendants’ failure to meet and 

confer timely under Local Rule 7-3. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 
 3 21-55681 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
(No. 73-CC-170

#### Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a North Aurora Center, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May*3, *1973.*

Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a North Aurora Center, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
### §§286b–1, 286b–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–240, title V, §541(d)(1), (5), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2518

Section 286b–1, Pub. L. 91–599, ch. 3, §31, Dec. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1658, related to annual report to Congress of National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies.

Section 286b–2, act July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §50, as added Nov. 30, 1983, Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title VIII, §813], 97 Stat. 1276, related to reports to Congress by National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies and Secretary of the Treasury.
Editorial Note on Part 606
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 606 appear at 71 FR 35513, June 21, 2006.

§ 606.41 High unemployment deferral. ( a ) *Applicability.* Subsection (b)(3)(C) of section 1202 of the Social Security Act permits a State to defer payment of, and extend the payment for, 75 percent of interest charges otherwise due prior to October 1 of a year if the OWS Administrator determines that high unemployment conditions existed in the State.
( b ) *High unemployment defined.* For purposes of this section, high unemployment conditions existed in the State if the State's rate of insured unemployment (as determined for purposes of 20 CFR 615.12) under the State law with respect to the period consisting of the first six months of the preceding calendar year equalled or exceeded 7.5 percent; this means that in weeks 1 (that week which includes January 1 of the year) through 26 of such preceding calendar year, the rate of insured unemployment reported by the State and accepted by the Department under 20 CFR part 615 must have averaged a percentage equalling or exceeding 7.5 percent.
( c ) *Schedule of deferred payments.* The State must pay prior to October 1 one-fourth of the interest due, and must pay a minimum of one-third of the deferred amount prior to October 1 in each of the three years following the year in which deferral was granted; at the State's option payment of deferred interest may be accelerated.
( d ) *Related criteria.* Timely payment of one-fourth of the interest due prior to October 1 is a precondition to obtaining deferral of payment of 75 percent of the interest due. No interest shall accrue on such deferred interest.
( e ) *Application for deferral and determination.* ( 1 ) The Governor of a State which has decided to request such deferral of interest payment shall apply to the Secretary of Labor no later than July 1 of the taxable year for which the deferral is requested.
( 2 ) The OWS Administrator will determine whether deferral is or is not granted on the basis of the Department's records of reports of the rates of insured unemployment and information obtained from the Department of the Treasury as to the timely and full payment of one-fourth of the interest due.
EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF CINEMARK USA, INC.
 UNITED STATES
 ARGENTINA
 BRAZIL




---



##### 



CANADA
 CENTRAL AMERICA
 CHILE
 COLOMBIA
 ECUADOR
 MEXICO
 PERU
 SPAIN
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                               SEMCO ENERGY, INC.

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Whereas, the Board of Directors of SEMCO Energy, Inc., a Michigan
corporation, at a meeting held on April 20, 1999, authorized the execution of
one or more Registration Statements for the registration and sale of up to
905,202 shares of Common Stock for issuance and sale to the public and the
filing of said Registration Statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

     NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby appoints William L. Johnson
and Sebastian Coppola, his or her true and lawful attorneys to execute, in
his/her name and in the capacity shown below, said Registration Statements and
any and all amendments thereto and to file the same with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Each of said attorneys shall have full power of
substitution and resubstitution.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands as of the 20th day of
April, 1999.

<TABLE>
<S>                                               <C>
/s/ DANIEL A. BURKHARDT                           /s/ HARVEY I. KLEIN
------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------
Daniel A. Burkhartd, Director                     Harvey I. Klein, Director

/s/ EDWARD J. CURTIS                              /s/ STEWART J. KNIFF
------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------
Edward J. Curtis, Director                        Stewart J. Kniff, Director

/s/ SEBASTIAN COPPOLA                             /s/ BRUCE G. MACLEOD
------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Coppola, Senior Vice President and CFO  Bruce G. Macleod, Director
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

/s/ JOHN T. FERRIS                                /s/ FREDERICK S. MOORE
------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------
John T. Ferris, Director                          Frederick S. Moore, Director

/s/ MICHAEL O. FRAZER                             /s/ EDITH A. STOTLER
------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------
Michael O. Frazer, Director                       Edith A. Stotler, Director

/s/ WILLIAM L. JOHNSON                            /s/ DONALD W. THOMASON
------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------
William L. Johnson, Chairman, President, CEO and  Donald W. Thomason, Director
Director (Principal Executive Officer)
</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 2,819

 2,474

 1,850

 1,685

 1,684

 2,012

 1,738

 1,986

 1,812

 1,993

 1,894

 1,696

 1,273

 1,149

 1,016

 945

 1,110

 1,932

 1,577

 1,649

 1,687

 1,716

 1,726

 1,597

 1,369

 1,322

 1,303

 1,297

 1,430

 1,276

 1,255

 204

 209

 208

 198

 174

 171

 175

 175

 169

 173

 177

 168

 165

 166

 168

 170

 179

 199

 203

 203

 206

 198

 193

 187

 185

 185

 181

 182

 187

 197

 202

 846

 827

 752

 570

 445

 436

 452

 492

 511

 595

 573

 475

 436

 398

 358

 382

 462

 617

 549

 474

 459

 442

 425

 409

 416

 436

 432

 439

 477

 443

 429

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §1456. Utilization of facilities and personnel of other Government agencies; reimbursement to agencies; report to Congress

The Secretary is authorized, in carrying on any activity under the authority of this chapter, to utilize, with the approval of the President, the services, facilities, and personnel of the other Government agencies. Whenever the Secretary shall use the services, facilities, or personnel of any Government agency for activities under authority of this chapter, the Secretary shall pay for such performance out of funds available to the Secretary under this chapter, either in advance, by reimbursement, or direct transfer. The Secretary shall include in each report submitted to the Congress under section 1439 1 of this title a statement of the services, facilities, and personnel of other Government agencies utilized in carrying on activities under the authority of this chapter, showing the names and salaries of the personnel utilized, or performing services utilized, during the period covered by such report, and the amounts paid to such other agencies under this section as payment for such performance.

(Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 36, title IV, §401, 62 Stat. 8.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1439 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 96–470, title I, §117, Oct. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 2240.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Frederick T. Walker, as Trustee under the Will of Hugh C. Fox, Deceased. Hugh C. Fox, Jr., Appellant; Frederick T. Walker, Individually and as Surviving Trustee under the Will of Hugh *777C. Fox, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Townley, J., dissents on the authority of *Smith*v. *Floyd*(193 N. Y. 683). [180 Misc. 152.]
### §1475d. Compensation for disability or death

A cultural exchange, international fair or exposition, or other exhibit or demonstration of United States economic accomplishments and cultural attainments, provided for under this chapter or the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.] shall not be considered a "public work" as that term is defined in section 1651 of title 42.

(Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 36, title VIII, §809, as added Pub. L. 97–241, title III, §304(e), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 293.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 87–256, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 527, which is classified principally to chapter 33 (§2451 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2451 of this title and Tables.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-7002 September Term, 2020

1:20-cv-02883-UNA

Filed On: April 9, 2021

Huguette Nicole Young,

Appellant

v.

Muriel Bowser,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed.

R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 22,

2020, be affirmed. Appellant does not dispute that she failed to comply with the district

court’s order directing her to pay the filing fee or to submit a completed motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On appeal, she has presented no valid arguments

demonstrating that the requirement that she pay the full district court filing fee or file a

properly-supported IFP motion violates her constitutional rights. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1); cf. Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

(“Leave to file a claim in forma pauperis has always been a matter of grace, a privilege

granted in the court’s discretion.”). Accordingly, the district court appropriately denied

the motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-7002 September Term, 2020

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
§ 418.3115 What events will make you ineligible for a subsidy? Generally, even if you meet the other requirements in §§ 418.3101 through 418.3125, we will deny your claim or you will lose your subsidy if any of the following apply to you: ( a ) You lose entitlement to or are not enrolled in Medicare Part A and are not enrolled in Medicare Part B.
( b ) You do not enroll or lose your enrollment in a Medicare Part D plan or Medicare Advantage plan with prescription drug coverage.
( c ) You do not give us information we need to determine your eligibility and if eligible, whether you should receive a full or partial subsidy; or you do not give us information we need to determine whether you continue to be eligible for a subsidy and if eligible, whether you should receive a full or partial subsidy.
( d ) You knowingly give us false or misleading information.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the six months ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  February 16, 2009





BY: /s/ DUANE J. ROTH
    ----------------------------
        Duane J. Roth
        Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



February 27, 2009

Securities and Exchange
Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/    Bruce Wasserstein                              
|Bruce Wasserstein Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
§ 401.80 Accounting for disclosures. ( a ) We will maintain an accounting of all disclosures of a record for five years or for the life of the record, whichever is longer; *except that,* we will not make accounting for: ( 1 ) Disclosures under paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 401.110; and,
( 2 ) Disclosures of your record made with your written consent.
( b ) The accounting will include: ( 1 ) The date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure; and
( 2 ) The name and address of the person or entity to whom the disclosure is made.
( c ) You may request access to an accounting of disclosures of your record. You must request access to an accounting in accordance with the procedures in § 401.40. You will be granted access to an accounting of the disclosures of your record in accordance with the procedures of this part which govern access to the related record. We may, at our discretion, grant access to an accounting of a disclosure of a record made under paragraph (g) of § 401.110.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.2070 Mandatory supplementation: State compliance not applicable. The requirement that a State must have in effect an agreement with the Commissioner whereby such State shall provide individual aged, blind, and disabled recipients residing in the State mandatory minimum supplementary payments beginning in January 1974 shall not be applicable in the case of any State where: ( a ) *State constitution.* The State constitution limits expenditures that may be paid as public assistance to, or on behalf of, any needy person to an amount that does not exceed the amount of State public assistance payments that are matched by Federal funds under title I, IV, X, XIV, XVI or XIX of the Social Security Act making it impossible for such State to enter into and commence carrying out (on January 1, 1974) such agreement with the Commissioner, and
( b ) *Attorney General decision.* The Attorney General (or other appropriate State official) has, prior to July 1, 1973, made a finding that the State constitution of such State contains limitations which prevent such State from making supplementary payments of the type described in section 1616 of the Act.
[40 FR 7640, Feb. 21, 1975, as amended at 62 FR 38455, July 18, 1997]